I don't think anyone should bike 23 mile each way in a blizzard. I just think they should move.:)
Seriously though, I know some of the bikers you refer to, who's attitude is "I bike everywhere because I'm so hardcore. Everyone should be hardcore like me and bike everywhere." In contrast, my position is "I bike everywhere, but honestly, I'm not all that hardcore; it's just not as hard as you probably think."
I only have to go a a few miles, but I actually look forward to snowstorms; snow biking is fun (for short distances).
Authors, with the exception of that rare 1 percent of best sellers, don't generally see their works get made into audio books in the first place.
If we want to help authors make more money, we should give them the opportunity to sell to people who want audio without the overhead of voice actors and production costs.
Seriously, do you contend that poor authors stand to lose significant revenue they currently get from sales to people who buy both the audio and of print books of their non-best-seller books? I find that implausible in the extreme, and can't figure out how this possibly costs the authors any sales otherwise.
I think the Guild is doing what most over-bureaucratic organizations do: cling to the model they know, resisting adaptation to reality to the detriment of their members.
Nah, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying you should not ignore the possibility of biking because you live in a place with bad weather. I'm saying biking is generally a much more viable option than most people give it credit for, that it is not as much fuss and work as is generally assumed.
Is biking a good option for you? I have no idea; I don't know you. For a lot of people, it is, in my opinion, a better option than they assume it is. Note that:
- the special tires (that you need in conditions well past when cars need snow tires) cost $20;
- I didn't buy any clothing I didn't need for going outside generally,
- Top physical shape? I wish. You'll want to quit smoking; not that you'll have to, but you'll want to. Unfortunately, you can stay fat.
"I've had precisely one job where commuting by bike made any sense; the others I either rode the bus (and sometimes walked on nice days) or biking was impractical."
You walked on nice days but biking was impractical? I must be misreading you.
"There's places in the suburbs that are basically accessible by bike-unfriendly roads"
This is true. Personally, I will not live in such a place. In any case, the guy I replied to is within 10 miles of Burlington VT, and (based on my knowledge of the area) should not have that problem.
I'm saying reasonable people can disagree about what the words mean. "interpreting" the law doesn't mean changing it away from something it obviously means, it means figuring out and agreeing on what it actually means.
"If you follow the words as to their original meanings for that era."
If I follow the words as to what I think their original meaning for that era was, or if you do?
You appear to assume what you think the law means is what it actually means in some objective sense. If some other guy (whether he is a lawyer or not) thinks the same thing, how shall we decide who's interpretation is correct?
Which is all a pretty abstract philosophical point. As for the case at hand, some would argue that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from any consequences of your speech. You can say whatever you want but there may be cost and consequences that result, notably liability from knowingly making false statements injurious to others.
"If you have an observation/opinion/speculation..."
If you're speculating, not claiming to actually know something is true that you know is false, it's not slander/libel. If a reasonable person wouldn't think it was true based on your comments, it's not slander/libel. OJ is a public figure, which makes it even harder to slander/libel him. Basically, it is expected that random strangers will be spouting BS about him.
So if I say "OJ did it", it's not libel for at least 2 reasons:
1. nobody is likely to be convinced by my claim, because I don't claim to know anything more about the case than anyone else.
2. I really think it's true, and there's no reason it should be clear to me that it is false.
Note that case 2 is far more liberal in the US than other countries; in most of Europe, you need a good reason to think your statement is true to avoid libel.
In the case at hand, they guy isn't a public figure, so the assumption is that people saying he's a kidnapper/rapist actually know something.
So, you should not accuse people of being kidnapper-rapists in a tone and context that makes it appear you are serious, and where it is likely to convince others, if you don't actually have reason to think it is true. Which, regardless of the legal subtleties, comes pretty squarely under the heading of "Don't be a dick."
"... this should be laughed at and we should move on."
Would you feel the same if a Google search for you turned up nothing but pages of people discussing how you were obviously guilty of kidnapping and rape, and it's too bad you got off on a technicality? I don't claim to know the answer, but I can see why this guy isn't laughing.
"The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we."
We should just use your interpretation instead? Yes, I know, yours isn't an interpretation, it's the obvious meaning of the words. Good thing nobody else thinks that; well, nobody who isn't obviously wrong...
It is important to note that a decision that appears bad or stupid may well result from a perfectly smart and competent judge correctly interpreting a bad or stupid law.
When a judge says the law says something you don't like, don't blame the judge unless you really think the law says something different than they do. Cases where there is good reason to disagree about what the law says are not nearly so common as cases where the law clearly and unarguably says something dumb.
I have "experienced Vermont", central Maine (which was worse), and currently Colorado. All have produced weather I would not feel safe driving in, so I'm glad I ride a bike.
Ice is a non-issue with studded tires. Deep enough snow will stop you, but that's considerably deeper than a car can handle. There is no weather where you can drive but not bike.
"I said I don't believe in religion (or is that confusing to you too?)"
That's not confusing to me. I just don't care if you beleive in religion or not; it's irrelevant.
What's confusing to me is why you are talking about carbon dating at all. There is no carbon dating involved in this article.
It's (still) confusing to me that you mention human tool use and the earth being a gas ball as a problem for carbon dating. That assertion confuses me because:
1. There is no carbon dating involved in determining the date of first human tool use. 2. There is no carbon dating involved in determining the date the earth was a gas ball. 3. The commonly understood dates of these things do not overlap, so there isn't any problem in the first place for the actual science involved. (which, to really beat the dead horse, is not carbon dating)
So I guess I do understand: when you wrote that first sentence, you had no idea what you were talking about whatsoever. In itself, that's not so bad. But getting all incredulous that someone would question statements you made from complete ignorance? That's kind of obnoxious.
As for your disbelief in carbon dating, I really don't care. You are so actively ignorant of the very simplest facts about the topic, to give any weight to your aggressively misinformed opinions would be completely ridiculous.
NN4 might have been more secure than IE4; I'll take your word for it. Lynx was undoubtedly more secure than either.
"We were the ONLY division of our company to not suffer from a single outbreak of worms or viruses in that period."
And did the lost productivity others had from worms and viruses exceed the lost productivity to your users from using software that was inferior in other ways? I'm not saying it didn't, it may well have. I'm saying that security is a feature, and the importance of that feature compared to others depends greatly on the needs of the particular user and/or organization. For a great many users/organizations IE4 was vastly superior to NN4. YMMV.
"Darwin didn't have a true theory because the idea he had had no predictive power..."
Well, what about the prediction that there must be some mechanism of inheritance that would track with the changes in expressed traits? I mean, if one didn't know there was anything like that, predicting it would be pretty fabulously impressive!
Just a nit-pick from a fellow physics geek: I think you mean the "heliocentrism wars", as that would be the disagreement between Galileo and the Pope. There weren't any "flat earth wars" to speak of, as no person or society is on record as having thought about it and believed the earth was flat. it's just not that hard to figure out if you have any notion of learning by observation at all. Western civilization has ascribed to a spherical earth model since at least Pythagoras (500 BC), and actually stated good reasons for doing so since at least Eratosthenes (200 BC).
"To say IE gained market share through its own 'excellence' is laughable. How can Mike Connor be making such a dumb statement? With a straight face?"
IE gained its market share in competition with Netscape in the version 4 days. You can attribute it to bundling if you like. IE4 was also markedly better that NN4. Firefox did not exist.
When I went to such a "club" (some years ago), there were a couple of drunks sitting at the end of the bar near the door so that when a non-member came in they could be the first to claim "He's with me!", so their new found friend would buy them a drink. Other than that, it was like any other seedy bar.
So it worked out about as well as most attempts to legislate morality. A law intended to mean "No Bars" wound up meaning "Bums drink free".
"Well, now I guess you may think this will go on until you claim the last word...I might suggest this debate"
This isn't really a debate, that involves some back and forth. I've just asked you to clarify one point: the very first sentence you wrote. I have tried to ask my question politely. You respond with long rants with lots of capitals that ignore my question and express a lot of weird ideas involving carbon dating of non-carbon based items like swords. I will not consider these beyond scanning to see if you have bothered to notice what I was asking you about. I will not bother considering your rants if you will not bother considering my one and only question:
Your first sentence in this thread appears nonsensical to me. Was that one sentence just stupidly wrong, or have I misunderstood?
First sentence of the post I originally replied to:
"Does this mean finally that we all approve that the carbon dating process they use to know how old things are, is greatly flawed, or are you telling me that when the earth was a mere gas ball, yes....there actually was humans using tools...?"
This seems to me like you think science has a problem with the dates for human tool use vs. the formation of the Earth. This article puts human tool use at 1.83 million years. Now you say scientist think the earth formed "billions of years ago". These appear to me to be non-contradictory. So I don't understand the problem you see for carbon dating, assuming it had nbeen used to determine either of these dates, which it wasn't.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood, otherwise it looks like you're just trying to ignore having been wrong in a simple and obvious way, and move on to more fuzzy assertions. That does not interest me. If I can understand why your first sentence made any sense, or you can understand why it didn't, perhaps we can begin discussing your second sentence. If you do not want to understand or be understood, perhaps you should reconsider this "engaging in discussion with others" thing; maybe it's not for you.
Thank you for the Wikipedia link on Flat Earth, which entirely supports my contention: Nobody in recorded history who has thoughtfully considered the evidence has thought the Earth was flat.
How many years ago do you think scientists claim the earth was a mere gas ball?
I understand you think they are wrong. I've got that. But if you're going to say someone is wrong, it is typical to have some idea what they are saying in the first place. You seem unable to state your understanding of what scientist claim on this one, simple number you've already claimed is problematic, so I'm disinclined to give much thought to the problems you see on more complex matters.
"How long did we have to live with the idea that the earth was flat and not round?"
Not as long as is commonly supposed. Any person who has made any attempt to determine the shape of the earth have though it was round since the dawn of recorded history. Aristotle calculated it's circumference with excellent accuracy. It's not clear anyone who actually thought about it ever thought it was flat.
No, I'm not asking you to give me dates for anything, I'm just asking for your understanding of the claims you are mocking. Let me try for a little more context:
"Why do you think carbon dating was used here?" I've not heard anyone suggest it was, and the article specifically describes something else. Your mockery of carbon dating in response to this story doesn't make any sense to me.
"How many years ago do you think this find implies humans were using tools? How many years ago do you think science claims earth was 'a mere gas ball'?"
You seem to suggest that this story claims people were around using tools at a date that overlaps with a date at which other scientists claim the Earth was a mere gas ball. This problem does not arise based on any claims of science I am familiar with. So I'm curious what claims you are referring to. The scientists in the article suggest humans were using tools 1.83 million tears ago. Can you reference for me any scientist who thinks the earth was a gas ball at that time?
I'm just curious as to your understanding of the claims you are dismissing.
I'll assume, to be charitable, that you heard something you didn't entirely understand, and have filled in the details with guesses. But your original understanding and subsequent guesses are wrong.
I say again: I have done it, you clearly have not. After splitting off a big shard by whatever means you like (whacking it with a big rock works great), you strike a lot of smaller flakes off the edges with a hammer stone. As you get close to the final edge you'll want to switch from impacts to knocking off very tiny bits with constant pressure.
There is no need for some wacky method to do "the hard work" because it isn't very hard work. It's very tedious work because you have to chip off a vast number of flakes. I don't see your wacky heat and water scheme making it any faster; which would be the only advantage worth having. Actually, I don't see it working at all, because it's ridiculous. And the obvious, hit-it-with-another-rock method works great.
And if they are big, they strike the ground with great force, producing lots of heat that melts them and/or the rocks they stuck. This cools, producing a type of rock that we can tell (I don't know the details) is the result of such an event.
I don't know f you didn't RTFA, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood:
There is no disscusion or claim about the rock the axe was made of. That's presumably really old. But the axe was found embedded in some other rock. The rock it was embedded in is thought to have been formed by a meteor strike 1.3 million years ago. So some Homo had to be there to make the axe before a meteor struck, melting a bunk of ground into lava (poor Homo!) that the axe got stuck in.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think anyone should bike 23 mile each way in a blizzard. I just think they should move.
Seriously though, I know some of the bikers you refer to, who's attitude is "I bike everywhere because I'm so hardcore. Everyone should be hardcore like me and bike everywhere." In contrast, my position is "I bike everywhere, but honestly, I'm not all that hardcore; it's just not as hard as you probably think."
I only have to go a a few miles, but I actually look forward to snowstorms; snow biking is fun (for short distances).
Authors, with the exception of that rare 1 percent of best sellers, don't generally see their works get made into audio books in the first place.
If we want to help authors make more money, we should give them the opportunity to sell to people who want audio without the overhead of voice actors and production costs.
Seriously, do you contend that poor authors stand to lose significant revenue they currently get from sales to people who buy both the audio and of print books of their non-best-seller books? I find that implausible in the extreme, and can't figure out how this possibly costs the authors any sales otherwise.
I think the Guild is doing what most over-bureaucratic organizations do: cling to the model they know, resisting adaptation to reality to the detriment of their members.
Nah, I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying you should not ignore the possibility of biking because you live in a place with bad weather. I'm saying biking is generally a much more viable option than most people give it credit for, that it is not as much fuss and work as is generally assumed.
Is biking a good option for you? I have no idea; I don't know you. For a lot of people, it is, in my opinion, a better option than they assume it is. Note that:
- the special tires (that you need in conditions well past when cars need snow tires) cost $20;
- I didn't buy any clothing I didn't need for going outside generally,
- Top physical shape? I wish. You'll want to quit smoking; not that you'll have to, but you'll want to. Unfortunately, you can stay fat.
"I've had precisely one job where commuting by bike made any sense; the others I either rode the bus (and sometimes walked on nice days) or biking was impractical."
You walked on nice days but biking was impractical? I must be misreading you.
"There's places in the suburbs that are basically accessible by bike-unfriendly roads"
This is true. Personally, I will not live in such a place. In any case, the guy I replied to is within 10 miles of Burlington VT, and (based on my knowledge of the area) should not have that problem.
I knew I should have used sarcasm tags...
I'm saying reasonable people can disagree about what the words mean. "interpreting" the law doesn't mean changing it away from something it obviously means, it means figuring out and agreeing on what it actually means.
"If you follow the words as to their original meanings for that era."
If I follow the words as to what I think their original meaning for that era was, or if you do?
You appear to assume what you think the law means is what it actually means in some objective sense. If some other guy (whether he is a lawyer or not) thinks the same thing, how shall we decide who's interpretation is correct?
Which is all a pretty abstract philosophical point. As for the case at hand, some would argue that freedom of speech does not imply freedom from any consequences of your speech. You can say whatever you want but there may be cost and consequences that result, notably liability from knowingly making false statements injurious to others.
"If you have an observation/opinion/speculation..."
If you're speculating, not claiming to actually know something is true that you know is false, it's not slander/libel. If a reasonable person wouldn't think it was true based on your comments, it's not slander/libel. OJ is a public figure, which makes it even harder to slander/libel him. Basically, it is expected that random strangers will be spouting BS about him.
So if I say "OJ did it", it's not libel for at least 2 reasons:
1. nobody is likely to be convinced by my claim, because I don't claim to know anything more about the case than anyone else.
2. I really think it's true, and there's no reason it should be clear to me that it is false.
Note that case 2 is far more liberal in the US than other countries; in most of Europe, you need a good reason to think your statement is true to avoid libel.
In the case at hand, they guy isn't a public figure, so the assumption is that people saying he's a kidnapper/rapist actually know something.
So, you should not accuse people of being kidnapper-rapists in a tone and context that makes it appear you are serious, and where it is likely to convince others, if you don't actually have reason to think it is true. Which, regardless of the legal subtleties, comes pretty squarely under the heading of "Don't be a dick."
"... this should be laughed at and we should move on."
Would you feel the same if a Google search for you turned up nothing but pages of people discussing how you were obviously guilty of kidnapping and rape, and it's too bad you got off on a technicality? I don't claim to know the answer, but I can see why this guy isn't laughing.
"The word of law is the word of law let's stop letting lawyers 'interpret' it for us shall we."
We should just use your interpretation instead? Yes, I know, yours isn't an interpretation, it's the obvious meaning of the words. Good thing nobody else thinks that; well, nobody who isn't obviously wrong...
It is important to note that a decision that appears bad or stupid may well result from a perfectly smart and competent judge correctly interpreting a bad or stupid law.
When a judge says the law says something you don't like, don't blame the judge unless you really think the law says something different than they do. Cases where there is good reason to disagree about what the law says are not nearly so common as cases where the law clearly and unarguably says something dumb.
I have "experienced Vermont", central Maine (which was worse), and currently Colorado. All have produced weather I would not feel safe driving in, so I'm glad I ride a bike.
Ice is a non-issue with studded tires. Deep enough snow will stop you, but that's considerably deeper than a car can handle. There is no weather where you can drive but not bike.
"I said I don't believe in religion (or is that confusing to you too?)"
That's not confusing to me. I just don't care if you beleive in religion or not; it's irrelevant.
What's confusing to me is why you are talking about carbon dating at all. There is no carbon dating involved in this article.
It's (still) confusing to me that you mention human tool use and the earth being a gas ball as a problem for carbon dating. That assertion confuses me because:
1. There is no carbon dating involved in determining the date of first human tool use.
2. There is no carbon dating involved in determining the date the earth was a gas ball.
3. The commonly understood dates of these things do not overlap, so there isn't any problem in the first place for the actual science involved. (which, to really beat the dead horse, is not carbon dating)
So I guess I do understand: when you wrote that first sentence, you had no idea what you were talking about whatsoever. In itself, that's not so bad. But getting all incredulous that someone would question statements you made from complete ignorance? That's kind of obnoxious.
As for your disbelief in carbon dating, I really don't care. You are so actively ignorant of the very simplest facts about the topic, to give any weight to your aggressively misinformed opinions would be completely ridiculous.
NN4 might have been more secure than IE4; I'll take your word for it. Lynx was undoubtedly more secure than either.
"We were the ONLY division of our company to not suffer from a single outbreak of worms or viruses in that period."
And did the lost productivity others had from worms and viruses exceed the lost productivity to your users from using software that was inferior in other ways? I'm not saying it didn't, it may well have. I'm saying that security is a feature, and the importance of that feature compared to others depends greatly on the needs of the particular user and/or organization. For a great many users/organizations IE4 was vastly superior to NN4. YMMV.
"Darwin didn't have a true theory because the idea he had had no predictive power..."
Well, what about the prediction that there must be some mechanism of inheritance that would track with the changes in expressed traits? I mean, if one didn't know there was anything like that, predicting it would be pretty fabulously impressive!
"He wasn't aware of DNA, genes or chromosomes."
Bingo.
Just a nit-pick from a fellow physics geek: I think you mean the "heliocentrism wars", as that would be the disagreement between Galileo and the Pope. There weren't any "flat earth wars" to speak of, as no person or society is on record as having thought about it and believed the earth was flat. it's just not that hard to figure out if you have any notion of learning by observation at all. Western civilization has ascribed to a spherical earth model since at least Pythagoras (500 BC), and actually stated good reasons for doing so since at least Eratosthenes (200 BC).
"To say IE gained market share through its own 'excellence' is laughable. How can Mike Connor be making such a dumb statement? With a straight face?"
IE gained its market share in competition with Netscape in the version 4 days. You can attribute it to bundling if you like. IE4 was also markedly better that NN4. Firefox did not exist.
When someone says "The point of the comic is..." you might want to read the comic to understand the point being made.
When I went to such a "club" (some years ago), there were a couple of drunks sitting at the end of the bar near the door so that when a non-member came in they could be the first to claim "He's with me!", so their new found friend would buy them a drink. Other than that, it was like any other seedy bar.
So it worked out about as well as most attempts to legislate morality. A law intended to mean "No Bars" wound up meaning "Bums drink free".
"Not to be a nitpicker"
To be a nitpicker, this is an odd way to begin a sentence that is entirely being a nitpicker.
"Well, now I guess you may think this will go on until you claim the last word...I might suggest this debate"
This isn't really a debate, that involves some back and forth. I've just asked you to clarify one point: the very first sentence you wrote. I have tried to ask my question politely. You respond with long rants with lots of capitals that ignore my question and express a lot of weird ideas involving carbon dating of non-carbon based items like swords. I will not consider these beyond scanning to see if you have bothered to notice what I was asking you about. I will not bother considering your rants if you will not bother considering my one and only question:
Your first sentence in this thread appears nonsensical to me. Was that one sentence just stupidly wrong, or have I misunderstood?
First sentence of the post I originally replied to:
"Does this mean finally that we all approve that the carbon dating process they use to know how old things are, is greatly flawed, or are you telling me that when the earth was a mere gas ball, yes....there actually was humans using tools...?"
This seems to me like you think science has a problem with the dates for human tool use vs. the formation of the Earth. This article puts human tool use at 1.83 million years. Now you say scientist think the earth formed "billions of years ago". These appear to me to be non-contradictory. So I don't understand the problem you see for carbon dating, assuming it had nbeen used to determine either of these dates, which it wasn't.
Please correct me if I have misunderstood, otherwise it looks like you're just trying to ignore having been wrong in a simple and obvious way, and move on to more fuzzy assertions. That does not interest me. If I can understand why your first sentence made any sense, or you can understand why it didn't, perhaps we can begin discussing your second sentence. If you do not want to understand or be understood, perhaps you should reconsider this "engaging in discussion with others" thing; maybe it's not for you.
Thank you for the Wikipedia link on Flat Earth, which entirely supports my contention: Nobody in recorded history who has thoughtfully considered the evidence has thought the Earth was flat.
I'll ask a third time:
How many years ago do you think scientists claim the earth was a mere gas ball?
I understand you think they are wrong. I've got that. But if you're going to say someone is wrong, it is typical to have some idea what they are saying in the first place. You seem unable to state your understanding of what scientist claim on this one, simple number you've already claimed is problematic, so I'm disinclined to give much thought to the problems you see on more complex matters.
"How long did we have to live with the idea that the earth was flat and not round?"
Not as long as is commonly supposed. Any person who has made any attempt to determine the shape of the earth have though it was round since the dawn of recorded history. Aristotle calculated it's circumference with excellent accuracy. It's not clear anyone who actually thought about it ever thought it was flat.
No, I'm not asking you to give me dates for anything, I'm just asking for your understanding of the claims you are mocking. Let me try for a little more context:
"Why do you think carbon dating was used here?"
I've not heard anyone suggest it was, and the article specifically describes something else. Your mockery of carbon dating in response to this story doesn't make any sense to me.
"How many years ago do you think this find implies humans were using tools?
How many years ago do you think science claims earth was 'a mere gas ball'?"
You seem to suggest that this story claims people were around using tools at a date that overlaps with a date at which other scientists claim the Earth was a mere gas ball. This problem does not arise based on any claims of science I am familiar with. So I'm curious what claims you are referring to. The scientists in the article suggest humans were using tools 1.83 million tears ago. Can you reference for me any scientist who thinks the earth was a gas ball at that time?
I'm just curious as to your understanding of the claims you are dismissing.
"I know that LCD prices add some to the final cost"
Sadly, LCD prices are the dominant factor in the final cost.
No, it isn't. You are making shit up.
I'll assume, to be charitable, that you heard something you didn't entirely understand, and have filled in the details with guesses. But your original understanding and subsequent guesses are wrong.
I say again: I have done it, you clearly have not. After splitting off a big shard by whatever means you like (whacking it with a big rock works great), you strike a lot of smaller flakes off the edges with a hammer stone. As you get close to the final edge you'll want to switch from impacts to knocking off very tiny bits with constant pressure.
There is no need for some wacky method to do "the hard work" because it isn't very hard work. It's very tedious work because you have to chip off a vast number of flakes. I don't see your wacky heat and water scheme making it any faster; which would be the only advantage worth having. Actually, I don't see it working at all, because it's ridiculous. And the obvious, hit-it-with-another-rock method works great.
And if they are big, they strike the ground with great force, producing lots of heat that melts them and/or the rocks they stuck. This cools, producing a type of rock that we can tell (I don't know the details) is the result of such an event.
I don't know f you didn't RTFA, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you misunderstood:
There is no disscusion or claim about the rock the axe was made of. That's presumably really old. But the axe was found embedded in some other rock. The rock it was embedded in is thought to have been formed by a meteor strike 1.3 million years ago. So some Homo had to be there to make the axe before a meteor struck, melting a bunk of ground into lava (poor Homo!) that the axe got stuck in.